Page 268

Page 5 of 9 § 10:71-5.7 Post-eligibility treatment of income; institutionalized individuals separate maintenance from her husband under N.J.S.A. 2A:34-24 because she had not exhausted her administrative remedies. M.E.F. v. A.B.F., 393 N.J. Super. 543, 925 A.2d 12, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 177 (2007). Decision of the Director of Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS), which upheld the imposition of a Medicaid transfer penalty based on an unequal equitable distribution to a non-institutionalized spouse of a Medicaid applicant in a bed and board divorce action, was reversed. There existed no regulation that authorized such a decision and the DMAHS's in-house rule imposing such a penalty for a transfer of assets as equitable distribution of more than 50 percent to the non-institutionalized spouse was contrary to both New Jersey public policy and the law of equitable distribution. W.T. v. DIVISION OF MED. ASSISTANCE & HEALTH SERVS., 391 N.J. Super. 25, 916 A.2d 1066, 2007 N.J. Super. LEXIS 59 (2007). Cost share of a Medicaid applicant was not properly reduced by $ 877.77, being the amount that the applicant agreed to pay as a part of a settlement agreement with a nursing home facility and the cost of his homeowners insurance, neither of which had been included in the calculation of the minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance for petitioner's wife because the applicant did not show that there was anything extraordinary or exceptional about the expenses that caused significant financial duress within the meaning of governing rules. J. O. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Soc. Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 14078-19, 2020 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 254, Final Agency Determination (July 26, 2020). Agency's director approved of an Initial Decision determining that assets that were classified by the agency as "excess resources" in fact were properly allocated to the community spouse. Once that allocation was made and even though it in fact would not generate sufficient income to bridge the gap between the community spouse's available resources and her verified minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance, the applicant was eligible for Medicaid and was properly awarded benefits. E.J. v. DMAHS, OAL DKT. NO. HMA 7245-2017, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 1311, Final Agency Determination (December 18, 2017). Medicaid applicant prevailed on a claim that assets classified by the agency as "excess resources" in fact were properly allocated to the community spouse. Once that allocation was made and even though it in fact would not generate sufficient income to bridge the gap between the community spouse's available resources and her verified minimum monthly maintenance needs allowance, the applicant was eligible for Medicaid and thus was entitled to an order awarding benefits. E.J. v. Burlington Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 07245-17, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 822, Initial Decision (November 13, 2017). Even though no exceptions were filed to the ALJ's recommendation finding that an annuity owned by a trust established by the will of the community spouse's father was not properly considered in determining a Medicaid applicant's available resources, disbursements from that trust would be considered in determining the applicant's eligibility. Additionally, guaranteed income payments from the annuity would count towards the income of the applicant's wife in the determination as to income to which she was entitled under spousal impoverishment rules. C.L. v. DMAHS and Monmouth Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 10901-2016, 2017 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 468, Order Adopting Initial Decision and Remanding (February 13, 2017). Though an institutionalized spouse who had applied for Medicaid benefits had excess resources, those excess resources were insufficient to generate sufficient income to sustain the community spouse. That being so, the institutional spouse was entitled to an award of benefits notwithstanding the existence of "excess resources." M.K. v. Somerset Cnty. Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA 12083-16, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 970, Initial Decision (November 16, 2016). A patient in an assisted living facility who, on her doctor's advice, hired a 24-hour per day companion to assist her with her physical needs was entitled to deduct the associated cost from her available income for the purposes of Medicaid eligibility. The determination by a county social services board to the contrary was rejected by the ALJ. G.F. v. Bergen Cnty., Bd. of Social Servs., OAL DKT. NO. HMA16502-15, 2016 N.J. AGEN LEXIS 939, Initial Decision (November 7, 2016).